By Robert Gammon, EAST BAY EXPRESS
The voters’ rejection of two statewide ballot measures might convince large corporations to think twice before attempting to game California’s initiative process.
Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, and Jerry Brown may have garnered the most attention, but the June 2010 California Primary could go down as the election in which voters rejected dishonest corporate politics and disingenuous ads. The defeat of Propositions 16 and 17 also may convince large corporations that attempts to game California’s initiative process are extremely risky, and, ultimately, very costly endeavors.
No one knows that better than PG&E. In the weeks leading up to June 8, Pacific Gas and Electric Company blanketed the airwaves, the Internet, and newspapers with ads touting Prop. 16 as the “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act.” PG&E boasted in advertisements and on its web site that a wide range of groups had endorsed Prop. 16. But while many groups voiced their support of the measure, only one of them — the California Chamber of Commerce — donated any money to the cause, and its relatively small contribution of $91,258 appears to have originated with PG&E. According to campaign finance reports, the chamber’s donation came right around the same time that PG&E contributed $250,000 to the chamber’s political action committee. Thus, the only real donor to the campaign appears to have been PG&E itself, which contributed a whopping $44.1 million, according to the latest campaign finance reports. No other taxpayer, consumer, or voters’ rights group appears to have donated a single dime to getting the measure passed.
To sum up, the Prop. 16 campaign was about one company — PG&E — trying to protect its monopoly by sponsoring and bankrolling a measure that would have made it nearly impossible for cities and counties to jump into the power market and increase their renewable energy use. It wasn’t the Taxpayers Right to Vote Act. It was PG&E’s Attempt to Keep Its Monopoly Act. And it lost by nearly 200,000 votes — 52 to 48 percent.
Similarly, the Prop. 17 campaign referred to itself as “Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates,” but a more accurate name would have been: “Mercury Insurance for Unfair Profits.” That’s because the only “Californian” who donated any significant amount of money to the campaign was Mercury Insurance Company, the sponsor of the initiative. According to the latest campaign finance reports, the state’s third-largest auto insurer donated $13.84 million to the campaign — representing 99.5 percent of the contributions received. The Prop. 17 campaign also could have billed itself as “Elect Republicans for Higher Mercury Profits.” Public records show that the Yes on 17 campaign helped finance at least seven Republican voter guides, most of them in Southern California. The GOP guides included “Continuing the Republican Revolution,” “Republican Woman’s Voice,” and “Orange County Republican Leadership Voters Guide.” In all, the Yes on 17 campaign donated $35,000 to mailers designed to boost Republicans and Prop. 17.
Republicans did just fine, but voters apparently saw through Prop. 17. It would have allowed Mercury to attract more customers with offers of discounts, while leading to higher rates for low-income motorists, more uninsured drivers, and, eventually, higher insurance rates for everyone else. It lost 52 to 48 percent as well.
Tags: big corporations, consumer, deceptive, Mercury, Prop 17, surcharge, trust, voters
